Search results

The purpose of this paper is to introduce readers to the social and ethnical dimensions of information science.

The paper provides a literature survey on the concept of information science and its history. It describes the different developments involved in the development of information science as a research field. It present various definitions and domains of the field that represent different stages of information science evolution.

This paper presents an updated image of information science as a research field that takes into consideration a user centered approach and social and ethical issues that are involved in the information processes.

The paper describes the contribution of information science to social and ethical aspects of the information age such as: individual empowerment, education toward information awareness, information needs, the problem of decision making, manipulation of search result on the web and the role of the information professionals in diminishing digital divide.

No scholarly publications have systematically studied the evolution and growth of China's scientific papers of library and information science published in the English language and covered by ISI during the reform era starting in 1979. It is intended that this paper should fill this gap.

This study surveys ISI library and information science papers authored by researchers of China during 1979‐2009 and quantitatively presents the development of scholarly publications authored by researchers from China. A total of 30 years of data of ISI literature are collected and analyzed, and the paper conducts an international comparison of research productivity among leading Asian countries.

The paper establishes the patterns and trends of papers authored by Chinese authors, particularly the top subject areas and top journals in which Chinese papers are highly represented. Besides, the paper makes an international comparison between China and other major Asian countries such as India, Japan, and Korea in terms of library and information science research outputs represented in ISI literature. China has become the leader in terms of research productivity of library and information science.

This study focuses on English‐language journal articles only. Only journals meeting ISI inclusion criteria are reviewed and analyzed. The possible accidentally inaccurate entries in the original ISI data have not been checked for accuracy and consistency for each journal article record.

The paper provided an example of using the powerful ISI databases of citation indexes, particularly ISI SCCI, in a cautious and critical way. It empirically presents the overall upward development of China's scholarship of library and information science. Either the Greater China area as a whole or Mainland China alone has become the leader in the scholarly publications in library and information ahead of India, Korea and Japan.

This study aims to explore the journal bibliometric characteristics of the Journal of Documentation (JOD) and the subject relationship with other disciplines by citation analysis.

The citation data were drawn from references of each article of JOD during 1998 and 2008. Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, Library of Congress Subject Heading, retrieved from the WorldCat and LISA database were used to identify the main class, subclass and subject of cited journals and books.

The results of this study revealed that journal articles are the most cited document, followed by books and book chapters, electronic resources, and conference proceedings, respectively. The three main classes of cited journals in JOD papers are library science, science, and social sciences. The three subclasses of non‐LIS journals that were highly cited in JOD papers are Science, “Mathematics. Computer science”, and “Industries. Land use. Labor”. The three highly cited subjects of library and information science journals encompass searching, information work, and online information retrieval. The most cited main class of books in JOD papers is library and information science, followed by social sciences, science, “Philosophy. Psychology. Religion.” The three highly cited subclasses of books in JOD papers are “Books (General). Writing. Paleography. Book industries and trade. Libraries. Bibliography,” “Philology and linguistics,” and Science, and the most cited subject of books is information storage and retrieval systems.

Results for the present research found that information science, as represented by JOD, is a developing discipline with an expanding literature relating to multiple subject areas.

Announces and discusses two false beliefs about information science: that there is a distinct discipline of information science; and that librarians need to study it. Finds several definitions of information science to be defective in the sense of what a definition ought to be. Shows that information science is no more than a gathering of findings from communication, computer science and librarianship ‐ it is not interdisciplinary, since it uses only products of the other fields, not their principles and methods. Concludes that library study requires only a knowledge of computer products that will enhance library service, and that information subjects are a distraction from fundamentals.

A statistical analysis is made of the professional literature of librarians and information scientists in an attempt to uncover the patterns of information flow and to evaluate the abstracting services provided for information workers. Citation analysis of some English language information science journals throws light on the principal sources used by British and American information scientists and the linguistic and national biases in the citations given. The growth of the subject matter published in the field of information science is displayed. Five abstracting services are evaluated. Their scope in terms of the language, country of origin, subject matter and format of the material selected and abstracted is determined. Coverage is assessed in comparison with three bibliographies in this subject area. Currency is determined from NRLSI acquisition dates. Key journals are found from productivity analysis of the abstracted journals. Conclusions are drawn as to the adequacy of the present services and suggestions made for possible improvements.

The purpose of this paper is to characterize library and information science (LIS) as fragmenting discipline both historically and by applying Whitley’s (1984) theory about the organization of sciences and Fuchs’ (1993) theory about scientific change.

The study combines historical source analysis with conceptual and theoretical analysis for characterizing LIS. An attempt is made to empirically validate the distinction between LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies.

The origin of fragmentation in LIS due the contributions of other disciplines can be traced in the 1960s and 1970s for solving the problems produced by the growth of scientific literature. Computer science and business established academic programs and started research relevant to LIS community focusing on information retrieval and bibliometrics. This has led to differing research interests between LIS and other disciplines concerning research topics and methods. LIS has been characterized as fragmented adhocracy as a whole, but we make a distinction between research topics LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies.

The paper provides an elaborated historical perspective on the fragmentation of LIS in the pressure of other disciplines. It also characterizes LIS as discipline in a fresh way by applying Whitley’s (1984) theory.

This chapter reviews significant advances in health sciences librarianship, highlighting developments between 1970 and 2005. During this time Advances in Librarianship published two chapters that dealt with health sciences librarianship. The first appeared in 1971 with volume two. Written by David Bishop (1971), then at the University of Arizona, it focused on developments in the 1960s and provided a review of the MEDLARS (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System) system, the beginnings of the regional medical library (RML) program and advances in library services and information resources. The second chapter devoted to health sciences libraries appeared in the ninth volume of Advances in Librarianship. In it Donald Hendricks (1979) from the University of New Orleans highlighted collaborative programs among health sciences libraries, the growing reliance on computer applications, professional development programs, clinical medical librarian services and the accomplishments of the Medical Library Association (MLA).

This paper proposes to rethink the concepts of relevance and usefulness and their relation to the theory–practice gap in management research.

On the basis of the cognitive-linguistic relevance theory or inferential pragmatics, supplemented by insights from information science, we define relevance as a general conceptual category, while reserving usefulness for the instrumental application in a particular case.

There is no reason to hold onto the difference between theoretical and practical relevance, nor to distinguish between instrumental and conceptual relevance.

This novel approach will help to clarify the confusion in the field and contribute to a better understanding of the added value of management research.